
TPM caught up with Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) just after he closed down business in the Senate for the night because House Republicans weren't able to get enough votes to pass House Speaker John Boehner's debt ceiling proposal.
Asked if he had expected the day to end with no vote in the House, Reid told TPM, "With their performance the last few days I don't expect anything."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was traveling on an official trip to China last week when his scandal-scarred Nevada GOP colleague, John Ensign, announced his resignation so he hasn't had a chance to comment until now.
Reid told reporters on a conference call Wednesday that he thinks the Senate Ethics Committee will issue a final report on the charges surrounding Ensign's affair with a top staffer's wife and the creative steps he took to keep it quiet.
In fact, he said, the panel doesn't have a choice.
"They are obligated to come up with a report," he said, noting that he had previously served as chairman of the ethics panel for many years.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)In a local TV interview that touched on the Tucson shootings, Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) recounted threats that have been made to his office -- specifically, one incident in which a man shot himself outside of Sen. Harry Reid's (D-NV) Las Vegas office in 1996.
"Sen. Reid and I actually had a stalker or whatever you want to call him," Ensign told Fox 5. "He left very blood-curdling -- almost threats -- on our phones. He ended up shooting himself in front of both of our offices."
Here's what happened, according to contemporary news reports: In 1995, when Ensign was a congressman, a man named Michael McCusker starting calling Ensign's office. He wanted help, he said, getting back $23,000 he lost in a Mexican land scam. When Ensign's staff found they couldn't help him, McCusker continued calling the office. He eventually came in and handed staffers a note that said "Justice or Death" and claimed he had a gun.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (1)Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) railed against President Barack Obama's nominees to the federal bench on Tuesday afternoon, complaining that Obama was only nominating individuals with "ACLU DNA" and rattling off a list of potential judges who are now or have ever been a member of the American Civil Liberties Union.
"I'm sure that less than one percent of the lawyers in America are members of the ACLU," Sessions said. "It seems if you have the ACLU DNA, you get a pretty good leg up to being nominated by this president."
The ACLU -- which has over 500,000 members and supporters -- did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)For the Tea Party Express, old habits die hard. TPE's PAC, Our Country Deserves Better, continued through the election cycle with its track record of raising money in support of grass-roots tea party candidates and then funneling those donations to the Republican consulting firm that founded it, recent filings show.
In a month-long period surrounding the midterm elections, a whopping 73 percent of funds raised -- totaling $599,377 -- was paid out to Russo Marsh and Associates, the Sacramento-based GOP political consulting firm that essentially founded the PAC in 2008, for miscellaneous costs including travel, consulting fees and media buys.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Following in the House's footsteps, the Senate is trying to block the Obama administration from bringing any Guantanamo Bay detainees to the United States, even for trial.
The Senate Appropriations Committee released the text of a 2,000-page omnibus spending bill yesterday, a bill that would fund the government through next September. Like the House's spending bill, the Senate's includes a provision that would ban any funds from being used for the transfer of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other Guantanamo Bay detainees to the U.S.
As TPM reported Monday, the House bill was written solely by Democrats -- meaning Democrats put the detainee transfer ban in. Attorney General Eric Holder wrote to the Senate's majority and minority leaders after that vote, pleading with them to keep such a provision out of the Senate's version.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Rep. Buck McKeon, the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee and a candidate for the chairmanship come January, doesn't think Congress should pass repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell during the lame duck session.
"I think that's unwise," McKeon said Wednesday in an interview with Reuters, noting that the Pentagon's review of how best to repeal the policy will not be released until early December.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said today that it is his "goal" to pass the Defense Authorization bill -- and with it, repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell -- in the Senate's lame-duck session, but warned that it'll be a tough squeeze.
According to The Hill, Reid said today that being able to pass the massive, traditionally must-pass funding bill will depend on Republican cooperation and support.
"The problem we have with the defense authorization bill is that it takes a while to get done," he said. "If we can get some agreement from the Republicans that we can move the bill without a lot of extraneous amendments, I think it's something we could work out. That would be my goal."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (1)In the final hours of Election Day, a lawyer for GOP Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle filed a complaint with the Justice Department alleging voter intimidation took place on behalf of the campaign of her opponent Sen. Harry Reid (D), Politico reports.
The complaint relates to an e-mail exchange between an unnamed Reid campaign staffer and the casino chain Harrah's, which was reported in a story published by the National Review. The National Review reported that the e-mails showed that "Executives at the casino giant Harrah's pushed company employees to vote early in an all-out effort to help the Harry Reid campaign."
Angle lawyer Cleta Mitchell -- co-chair of the Republican National Lawyers Association --said the e-mails showed "union intimidation tactics." Reid's campaign countered that the e-mails don't show anything against the law and mentioned that the conservative blogger who wrote the story told Fox News that she didn't think "anything either illegal or unethical was done here."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)The Nevada secretary of state has declared that complaints made by Nevada Republicans alleging voter fraud are without merit.
Last Friday, Secretary of State Ross Miller, a Democrat, released a 20-page report responding to several complaints filed by a lawyer for the Nevada GOP Victory Committee. The complaints alleged that one- or two-ballot discrepancies in the number of early voters recorded and the number of ballots cast should be investigated for signs of voter fraud.
Miller checked out several of the complaints and ruled that they were simple clerical errors.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)The Nevada Action Coalition is a conservative group that recently alleged that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was planning to benefit at the polls from illegal voter fraud.
It is also a beneficiary of Reid's opponent's largesse: a now-defunct non-profit run by Reid's Tea Party-backed opponent Sharron Angle gave nearly $100,000 to that very group in 2008, Delen Goldberg of the Las Vegas Sun reported Wednesday.
Angle's We the People Nevada PAC, which dissolved in May 2009, gave $92,000 to the Nevada Action Committee -- which has since joined other conservative groups alleging that Democrats in the state are involved with voter fraud and trying to steal the election.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Republican Senate candidate from Nevada Sharron Angle has accused her opponent, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, of committing voter fraud by offering free food to voters. And Reid's campaign has shot back, accusing Angle's "goons" of intimidating voters.
In a fundraising letter written by her campaign lawyer, Cleta Mitchell, Angle's campaign alerts voters to some "very grave news."
"Harry Reid has been offering free food and, according to other reports, some Democratic allies such as teachers' unions are offering gift cards in return for a vote for Reid," claims Mitchell, who is also the co-chair of the Republican National Lawyers Association. "Harry Reid intends to steal this election if he can't win it outright."
The Senate today blocked the start of debate on the National Defense Authorization Act, with Republicans objecting to a provision that would repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The vote was 56 to 43, with 60 votes needed to break the filibuster.
Two Democratic senators, Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln, both from Arkansas, voted with Republicans to block the bill. Majority Leader Harry Reid also voted no, a procedural move so he can bring the cloture motion back to the floor later.
DADT was one of several sticking points of the defense authorization bill, which must pass in order to fund the military.
Republican senators, including Sens. John McCain (AZ) and Susan Collins (ME), argued that passing repeal now would undermine the Defense Department's review of the policy, which won't be completed until December.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (1)Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid today promised pop star Lady Gaga, via the Twitter machine, that he will hold a vote on Don't Ask, Don't Tell next week.
Reid announced yesterday that the Senate will vote sometime next week on the 2011 defense authorization bill, which includes a provision to repeal DADT.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (1)Five months after President Obama announced a $1.25 billion settlement for black farmers who faced overt discrimination by the USDA in the eighties and nineties -- and several days after the Sherrod case brought the issue up again -- Congress again refused to authorize the money.
On Thursday, the Senate quietly stripped the funding for the Pigford II settlement and several other programs from a supplemental war funding bill. Senators then unanimously passed their version of the bill, which will go back to the House.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (7)Personal financial disclosure forms from members of Congress, showing assets and other information as of the end of last year, are now available for perusal.
There are lots of fun tidbits. For example, Sen. John Ensign's wife was paid $2,350 in salary by HairArts LLC of Las Vegas. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) got dividends from Pizza Hut (Yum! Brands).
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (2)As the Senate gets set to take up Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court, the slow pace of confirmation for lower-court nominations is creating vacancies that are gumming up the system and could even pose a long-term threat to President Obama's agenda. In response, some who follow the process are calling on Democrats to get tougher on GOP obstructionism. "We need a Nancy Pelosi in the Senate," said one progressive activist.
After yesterday's confirmations of Jon DeGuilo and Timothy Black to district court judge-ships, the Senate has now confirmed 26 of President Obama's nominees -- compared to 52 at this point in President Bush's tenure. Forty-two nominations are pending -- 20 in committee, and 22 on the Senate floor. Meanwhile, there are currently 102 court vacancies. That's an unprecedented backlog, observers of the process agree.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (5)The fundraising emails from AmeriPAC stream in with subject lines designed to give a conservative a heart attack: "Obama Plays 'Russian Roulette' With Supreme Court" ... "Illegals March Terrorizing American Cities" ... "Stop Reid's Extreme Left-Wing Agenda."
In lurid prose sprinkled with bold and underlined capital letters, the emails highlight the outrage du jour and ask like-minded people to help fund the fight against President Obama's agenda: "We need you to donate regularly every week or month with the same commitment to candidates that are listening and help AmeriPAC give the maximum support we can to every candidate that will pledge to take back America," a typical pitch goes.
But despite promises to spend donor money on conservative candidates, a review of AmeriPAC's campaign finance reports by TPMmuckraker shows the outfit has used just $1,300 on campaign-related spending out of nearly $1.3 million raised in the 2010 election cycle. Meanwhile, about 85 percent of the money -- which was raised in $20, $50, and $100 dollar increments from individuals around the U.S. -- has gone back into fundraising expenses, with nearly $1 million going to a single Pennsylvania-based email marketing firm with a history of controversy.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (2)The latest TV ad from shady anti-financial reform group Stop Too Big To Fail advocates killing financial reform legislation because, the ad claims, the big banks actually want to see reform happen.
The ad follows the same "bailout, bailout -- BAILOUT!!" script of the group's previous ads, but with a new twist. Now, instead of misrepresenting the position of a progressive economist (as the group did with Simon Johnson and Robert Reich), Stop Too Big To Fail makes the twisted argument that financial reform should be defeated precisely because big bank CEOs have made extremely broad statements of support for a regulatory overhaul.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (1)In the last few weeks, a new player entered the financial reform fray with a $1.6 million ad buy, a respected economist on board, a blitz of opinion columns on left-leaning websites, and a message, cooked right into the group's name -- Stop Too Big To Fail -- that liberals could love.
But as TPMmuckraker has looked into the group, every indication is that Stop Too Big To Fail is an astroturf operation funded by corporate interests to give the appearance of grassroots opposition to reform.
The group's leader has a long history running a rent-a-front operation: offering up his services to large corporations who are willing to pay top dollar for a "consumers group" that will engage in stealth advocacy on behalf of industry. The group refuses to divulge its funding sources. The respected economist whose support the group touts now says he was deceived. And Stop Too Big To Fail has links to DCI Group, one of Washington's best-known astroturf operators.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (13)The defeat of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was from the outset perhaps the top priority of the Tea Party Express, according to an internal memo obtained by Politico. The group's focus on unseating the Democratic Senate leader appears to bolster the charge that its priorities dovetail more closely with those of the Republican party than with the more independent Tea Party movement.
The memo (pdf) was written in April 2009 by Joe Wierzbicki of Russo, Marsh -- the California Republican consulting firm, run by veteran consultant Sal Russo, that created the PAC that runs Tea Party Express. As Politico reported, Wierzbicki proposed launching the Tea Party Express as a bus tour across the country, arguing that it would "give a boost to our PAC and position us as a growing force/leading force as the 2010 elections come into focus."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (3)The group of Republican attorneys general threatening a constitutional challenge of the so-called "Cornhusker Kickback" in the Senate health bill yesterday wrote a letter to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi outlining their complaints. 13 AGs, several of whom are running for governor, signed the letter.
The letter has sparked a new round of media coverage, with little analysis of the constitutional arguments being cited. Under the provision in question, all of Nebraska's expanded Medicaid costs would be covered by the federal government, with other states splitting the cost.
Here's an interesting window into the legislative sausage-making process - and a classic example, among countless others, of the way in which Senate leaders working on health-care reform are having to walk a tightrope between well-meaning policy goals and crude political imperatives.
As we reported last week, Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI) has sponsored a measure designed to crack down on "pay-for-delay" deals by pharmaceutical companies, in which the maker of a brand-name drug pays a generic to hold off on marketing its cheaper drug, thereby preserving the brand-name's monopoly. This textbook anti-competitive tactic is hugely valuable to drug-makers, because it essentially allows them to buy more protection than their patent confers. But by keeping cheaper generic drugs off the market, it costs consumers billions -- and those costs fall disproportionately on the uninsured.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (2)That non-aggression pact that Nevada senators Harry Reid and John Ensign have long maintained could be breaking down -- under the strain of the Republican's personal woes.
Ensign is pulling out all the stops to hold onto his job in the wake of admitting to an affair with the wife of a top aide. And that evidently means coming close to ditching the agreement that he and Reid, a Democrat, have long held to, wherein they avoid criticizing each other.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Just how big a Democratic donor was Hassan Nemazee?
He and his wife (mostly he) gave the Democratic House and Senate campaign committees $191,700 over the past three election cycles, 2006, 2008, and 2010.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (3)Daniel Bogden, who was fired by the Bush Administration in 2006 during its purge of US Attorneys, officially got his old job back yesterday as the Senate confirmed him by unanimous consent to be US Attorney for Nevada.
President Obama nominated Bogden for the job earlier this year. Nevada Senators Harry Reid (D) And John Ensign (R) each hailed Bogden in statements.
Reid's statement after the jump:
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (9)The news that John Thain, the CEO of Merrill Lynch, has requested a $10 million bonus isn't sitting well with some prominent political figures.
A statement from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid notes that in October, Merrill received $10 billion in bailout money. Reid then declares:
The TARP program, from which Merrill Lynch has taken billions of taxpayer dollars, was designed explicitly to limit executive compensation, bonuses and golden parachutes. While American families struggle to keep their jobs and their homes, I question the chutzpah of asking for a $10 million taxpayer-subsidized bonus. Americans deciding which bills to pay this month just to make ends meet do not want their hard-earned money even indirectly spent rewarding executives from banks that are largely responsible for the economic crisis. I sincerely hope that Merrill Lynch rejects this request.
Meanwhile, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who is conducting an investigation of executive pay on Wall Street, has written a letter to Merrill board members that makes similar points. Cuomo writes:
Paying executives at Merrill millions each in "performance" bonuses in this context [of a taxpayer-funded bailout of Wall street firms] would be oxymoronic to say the least and certainly a thumb in the eye to taxpayers. Enough is enough.PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (11)
Reid Backtracks, Accepts Tougher Earmark ReformWin a few, lose a few.
Yesterday, Paul reported on the fireworks erupting in the Senate over ethics reform. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) went to the wall for a watered-down reform proposal, which would have kept the public from knowing which lawmakers inserted billions of dollars worth of earmarked expenditures. Republicans, with the help of nine Democrats (and Joe Lieberman), kept him at bay by pushing an amendment that would force nearly all earmarks to be identified by their sponsors.
Today, Reid appears to have accepted defeat. From CQ (sub. req.):
After losing a critical floor vote Thursday and scrambling in vain to reverse the decision, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., found the spirit of bipartisan compromise more to his liking Friday morning.PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Reid offered an olive branch to Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., agreeing to embrace his amendment to a pending ethics and lobbying overhaul (S 1) with some modifications. DeMint’s amendment, which Democratic leaders tried but failed to kill on Thursday, would expand the definition of member earmarks that would be subject to new disclosure rules. . . .
Friday morning, a chastened Reid said, “Yesterday was a rather difficult day, as some days are. We tend to get in a hurry around here sometimes when we shouldn’t be. Personally, for the majority, we probably could have done a little better job.”
Who's The Arm-Twister Now?Showing he can be every bit as bullying to advance a bad idea, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) held open a vote on his watered down earmark reform legislation today in order to round up enough votes to push it through.
Part of the Senate's ethics reform bill deals with earmarks -- lawmakers' often abused practice of inserting items in legislation to direct funds to special interests (a la Duke Cunningham). According to current rules, lawmakers can attach earmarks anonymously, a state of affairs inviting abuse. Reform efforts have sought to change that. Republicans and good government types have criticized Reid's version of earmark reform legislation, which is weaker than the version passed by House Democrats, saying that it doesn't go near far enough in terms of disclosure.
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) offered an amendment today that mirrored the tougher legislation passed by House Democrats.
According to Craig Holman of Public Citizen, Reid's version, if it had been applied to earmarks as part of legislation passed last year, would have disclosed the sponsor of only approximately 500 earmarks. DeMint's amendment would have forced sponsors to be known of roughly 12,000.
"DeMint's version is considerably tougher," Holman told me, noting that both Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who co-sponsored the bill, are "on the appropriations committee and haven't really believed in strong earmark reform propoals in the first place."
But Democrats sought to block DeMint's amendment, with an effort led by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL). They failed, due mostly to nine Democrats, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and freshmen Sens. Jon Tester (D-MT) and Jim Webb (D-VA), who crossed the aisle to vote with the Republicans, along with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT). Here's the roll call tally.
But instead of then passing DeMint's amendment, as would normally occur in the Senate, the Democratic leadership held the vote open, a move that Senate Republicans called unprecedented, and reminiscent of tactics used by the GOP-controlled House that voters just booted.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Allow us to ride our Solomon hobby horse a little more.
Yesterday, not long after The Washington Post announced that it had snagged the AP's John Solomon -- citing, among other things, his courageous exposure of Sen. Harry Reid's "ethical missteps," -- news came that the Senate ethics committee had cleared Reid for accepting free ringside seats from the Nevada Athletic Commission.
That ethics complaint, of course, had been spurred by one of Solomon's hit pieces on Reid, and the one, to our judgment, most riddled with inaccuracies and omissions that served to pump up Solomon's rather lame story.
But who doesn't get cleared by the congressional ethics committees nowadays?
Most interesting to us was the AP's story on the decision, which was written by the AP's Erica Werner -- not Solomon.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)
Abramoff in with Dems? Former Colleagues Say No"Abramoff Reports to Prison; Officials Focus on Reid, Others," was the headline of an ABC story yesterday reporting that Jack Abramoff, the convicted lobbyist, was dishing dirt on a handful of Democratic senators, Harry Reid (D-NV) in particular.
"Abramoff has offered testimony [to investigators] about his contacts with 'six to eight seriously corrupt Democratic senators,'" ABC News reported, citing "sources close to the federal investigation." One "source close to the investigation" told ABC that $30,000 in contributions to Reid from Abramoff's tribal clients "were no accident and were in fact requested by Reid."
The report was surprising, particularly given that in the thousands of pages of Abramoff's emails, billing records and other documents released over the past two years, there's little evidence that the Republican lobbyist or his team worked very hard to persuade Democratic lawmakers to support their clients, legally or illegally.
Curious to learn more, we called a number of Abramoff's former colleagues from his heyday at the Greenberg Traurig lobby firm to see how the story struck them.
"Jack has not met eight Democrats in Washington," one lobbyist told us.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)
LA Times: Through Earmark, Reid May Have Boosted His Land ValueThe Los Angeles Times does their muckraking duty this morning, taking a look at the new Democratic leadership's penchant for earmarking. And what did they come up with?
Soon-to-be Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) secured millions to build a bridge near to land that he owns, likely increasing its value.
Last year, Reid earmarked $18 million in federal funds for the bridge linking Nevada and Arizona by traversing the Colorado River, just a few miles from Reid's 160-acre undeveloped plot on the Arizona side of the border. According to the Times, Reid "valued the Arizona land at $500,000 to $1 million in his most recent disclosure, which reported total assets of at least $2.2 million."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)
Responding to AP, Reid Cleans up His ActSen. Harry Reid (D-NV) is amending his disclosure reports in response to the recent AP report on a 2004 land deal -- and straightening up a few other "minor" details.
In a statement, Reid said that his disclosure forms will now reflect that he transferred the title of the land to an LLC in 2001. Reid had disclosed his ownership of the land in reports, but not the transfer of the land to an LLC. He eventually sold the land in 2004 for a $700,000 profit.
I criticized the AP's original piece on the deal, written by John Solomon, for mischaracterizing the LLC transfer as a sale (for more on that, read my earlier post). In its follow-up piece today on Reid's statement, the service continues to describe the transfer as a sale.
In addition to clarifying the land deal reported by AP, Reid disclosed two other "minor" real estate assets. The top-ranking Senate Democrat also reimbursed his political campaign for $3,300, "to fully reimburse the campaign for donations it made over several years to the employee holiday fund in my apartment building."
Reid's full statement is below...
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)
AP's Reid Story Doesn't Add UpSen. Harry Reid (D-NV) "collected a $1.1 million windfall on a Las Vegas land sale even though he hadn't personally owned the property for three years," the AP reports.
Except that's wrong. Reid made a $700,000 profit on the sale, not $1.1 million. Also, the story, by the AP’s John Solomon, makes it sound as if Reid got money for land he didn't own. But that's not the case.
It’s not the first time that Solomon has published a misleading story about Reid. This is the third such story by Solomon over the past six months. Each time, Solomon has hit Reid for taking actions which might create the appearance of ethical impropriety. But because Solomon writes for the most powerful news organization in the land, these very gray-shaded stories pack a wallop. It doesn’t help that on numerous occasions, he has missed or distorted key details – missteps that help blow up his stories.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)
LAT: Reid Pushed for Buddy Developer, ContributorDemocrats have tried to make a campaign theme out of the "culture of corruption" in GOP-run Washington. But stories like this don't help their cause one bit.
From his perch as the top Dem in the Senate, Harry Reid (D-NV) -- that's would-be Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to you, ma'am -- has been trying to do big favors for a close real estate developer/lobbyist friend, the Los Angeles Times reported Sunday. Unfortunately for his pal, Reid's efforts were only middlingly effective.
How close is Reid to Harvey Whittemore? Reid's son, Leif, is Whittemore's personal lawyer. At one point or another, all four of Reid's sons have worked for Whittemore's law firm. Whittemore says the relationship goes back "decades." (Reid wouldn't comment to the Times for the article.) And Whittemore's given $45,000 to Reid's various organizations, plus $20,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
Eight years ago, Whittemore sank at least $15 million for land and rights in a 67-square-mile tract of empty Nevada desert, the paper reported. There, he hoped to build a massive development of 159,000 homes, 16 golf courses, and requisite stores and services.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)So what was John Solomon's competition at the AP for their weekly contest?
Below is the full text of the internal Associated Press email lauding Solomon for his work on the Reid story. This text includes the long list of stories deemed insufficiently controversial to deserve the editors' plaudits - like, for example, coverage of a riot in Kabul.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)As Josh points out at TPM, the AP thought that John Solomon's reporting on Harry Reid was just swell. In the internal email sent out to AP staff announcing Solomon's award, this section jumped out at me:
The story and video won widespread play on the Web fronts and newspaper fronts, and stirred an enormous debate in the blogosphere, generating more than 10,000 postings and more than a dozen newspapers wrote editorials chastising Reid, including USA Today.
Hmm. Yes, that "enormous debate" in the blogosphere. As the author of eight of those 10,000 posts, I confess I'm surprised that it doesn't matter to editors at the AP that the debate was over the AP's reporting.
There's no such thing as bad publicity, apparently.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Wednesday evening I received a lengthy reply from the Associated Press responding to my criticisms of John Solomon's initial piece on Harry Reid - I called Solomon, who passed me off to AP's corporate media relations. The reply, unsurprisingly, is a mix of flat-out falsehoods and off-point rebuttals. But it's important that we reply, so I've posted it with my point-by-point response below.
First, let me just say that I would have gotten to this Wednesday night if Solomon hadn't followed up with a still more misleading story. That kept me pretty occupied until yesterday afternoon. So you won't find the issues from Solomon's follow-up addressed below. The reply deals strictly with Solomon's initial piece.
OK. But before I get into the nitty-gritty, let's not lose sight of the big picture.
We went after Solomon's piece for a simple reason. At a time when Congressional corruption is arguably worse than it has ever been, leading to a spreading net of criminal investigations, Solomon used the most powerful organ in the land to attack Harry Reid for what is at very most a minor ethical transgression. Solomon did not allege a quid pro quo. He did not even allege that Reid violated ethics rules. What he argued was that Reid should have avoided accepting the seats in order to "avoid the appearance he was being influenced by gifts." And remember the supposed influence here was from a governmental body with interest - but no demonstrated financial interest - in pending legislation.
You don't have to look far in Congress to find examples of Members who could have exhibited more exemplary behavior. As the conservative-leaning Las Vegas Review Journal wrote in an editorial, "on a scandal scale of 1 to 10, these free fight nights rate about a 2." To puff that story up into an 8 is just bad journalism.
Solomon excluded key exculpatory details that weakened his case. As is clear from the AP's response below, it wasn't that he'd failed to gather these details - it was that he decided readers didn't need to be bothered with them.
And I should mention that in his follow-up piece, the distortions got much worse.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)AP reporter John Solomon seems to think that the best defense is yet more bamboozlement.
Remember back to Solomon's initial version of his story on Harry Reid's acceptance of ringside boxing seats. Solomon claimed that Reid shouldn't have accepted them to avoid the appearance of impropriety. He didn't explicitly note that Reid actually voted against the guys who gave him the ringside seat credentials. But he didn't allege a quid pro quo either.
But now he seems to be saying that maybe it was a quid pro quo.
Check down in today's piece on Reid:
Reid told AP the free tickets did not influence his position, noting he voted for the legislation when it passed the Senate. However, Reid had forced a change in the bill that let the federal commission regulate the TV networks when they promoted fights. After the change, the House never approved the legislation.
For those of us who speak the English language these two sentences have a pretty straightforward meaning. Reid says the tickets didn't influence his position, "however", ergo, on the contrary, he pushed for this change about regulating TV networks. And "after the change" the House didn't approve the bill. Again, going by basic English, the pretty clear suggestion is that Reid's change had something to do with the bill not making it through the House.
In other words, Solomon is saying one of two things, or maybe both. Either the Commission -- the folks who gave Reid the credentials -- wanted this TV network change or maybe the TV network change was a poison pill, meant to torpedo the bill the House, a backdoor way of killing the legislation.
If there's some other way to understand Solomon's words, seriously, let us know.
I don't know much about boxing regulation. So I got on the phone to make some calls.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Oh my. John Solomon just keeps it comin'.
Via Greg Sargent, I see that John Solomon has rewritten the lead to his follow-up piece on Harry Reid. The distorting lead I pointed out yesterday has been replaced by a more narrative approach.
But he didn't stop there. And really, why should he? It's so much easier to cherry pick facts to boost your story than submit to the drudgery of countervailing details.
So here's another example of Solomon's bamboozlement. And, I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to take you once again into the weedy specifics of this story. But it's worth it, believe me.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)
